Want to work for The Roar? We're on the hunt for talented and enthusiastic Roarers to join our video team for the summer (and beyond!). If you think you have what it takes to produce videos for The Roar, get in touch.

You obviously did not watch the game or many of o’connors matches he is one of the better defensive backs in oz. He was in some serious pain last night and still stood up to try and slow down ranger, it was Lachie Mitchell and Vunas defence last night that was questionable

No, he’s merely pointing out that JOC is not held to the same standards that QC is when it comes to defence – JOC let in 3 missed tackles (1 leading to a try) and missed three kicks at goal before he picked up his injury.

TJ I watched the first half only then took the kids to the circus, and as Red Kev said their were some ordinary moments by the chosen one at 5/8, other 5/8 in Oz would be slammed for that type of performance.

The chosen 1?
Where is all this coming from? If JOC is Deans preferred 10 somebody better remind Deans because hes preferred Cooper whenever possible according to selection.
JOC has been played at 10 for Australia once and thats because Cooper was injured.
People also say Barnes is a Deans favourite at 10. SINCE WHEN? He never, ever, ever has been and was selected at 10 in 2012 after Lealiifano, Beale, JOC and Cooper were injured and Giteau had left for Europe. Then he played 4 matches at 10, got 2 man of the match awards, and was dropped pretty much as soon as possible.
Cooper or Beale will be the Wallaby 10 and I would suggest that Cooper is far more likely.

Jeez, trying to stop Rene Ranger at full speed AFTER you have picked up a nasty injury to the sternum – I would call that courage, not failure. Not saying JoC is right for WB 10, but the comparison between QC’s tackle on Ranger and that one – utterly unfair.

I agree. Some people are such one-eyed Quade fans that they feel they must denigrate any other potential No 10 in order to talk Quade up, even when the basis of denigration (JOC’s ability and commitment in defence) is patently absurd.

I think Quade is mature enough to realise that he can make his own case for selection (and he is doing a pretty good job now). Pity some of his fans aren’t the same.

looks like only wing is a good spot for JoC his defence is weaker than Coopers and as bad as Beales.

Since his goal kicking is not that accurate this year I would not pick him starting but have CL at 12 and give him the goal kicking duties.
Ioane and Tomane on the wings and Folau at F/B (now that Folau proves he can kick long).

Funny how quickly a story on an injury to JOC, becomes a lets knock JOC and push claims for Quade. Wonder how long this will go on for. The fact that JOC has an injury and may not play in any position…. who cares let the roaring begin!!

Agree, but you will be shouted down if you dare bring up QC or the Reds on an unrelated topic. The double standards is staggering. As Cat said, Cooper has always been picked when fully fit. The fact he has not played for the Wallabies since his injury is used by the paranoid as an excuse to jump on Deans or any other 5/8.

I agree with Red Kev and PeterK …. JOC’s defence is below par, not just last night but for the last few weeks. He is falling off tackles that he shouldn’t. At this point in time QC is defending better and Foley and Toomua are streets ahead of both in defence.

JOC’s injury maybe a blessing in disguise, as he may no longer be fit, and therefore a selection consideration for the Lions tests at 10. JOC is not a test standard 10.

Sure JOC is worse then QC in defence, what a joke, Cooper misses one in 3, Joc one in 7. I am not saying make him Aus 10 but let’s not ignore reality. JOC dis not commit to the Ranger Tacle because of injury.

Some of the blokes on the Roar are simply too one eyed.

Please give me the proof that QC is better in defence or stop making silly statements that will leaves you looking like a “Marto”

That ‘try’ to Saili from the Ranger pass and kick through proved costly to the Rebels. Really. Not sure the kick through was intentional…more like it brushed his fingertips and fell onto his boot. Is that control?
Also interested to see how young Hegarty was the only player apparently unable to throw a spiral pass. Like a lot of league players, he chucks it like a sack of potatoes. Why is this the preferred way to pass in the 13-man code?

Control doesn’t exist no, but it’s a useful test when determining if some stated criteria are fulfilled – you can’t catch the ball without some measure of control of the ball and there’s no way that Saili had any control over that ball. I don’t think he intended to kick it until he dropped it, and most refs are on to it enough not to fall for that one, especially with multiple instant replays.

Exactly correct call – the kick is intentional and a kick is an act of intent and control. If he had dropped the ball and it had hit his foot through provenance that is a knock on, however it is as plain as day that he intends to kick the ball once he realises he can’t gather it.

“An act of intent and control” is irrelevant – the law doesn’t require control or intent, it requires a catch. Like I said ‘control’ isn’t in the laws, it’s only relevance would be in determining whether someone has satisfied a criteria that IS in the laws.

Put simply, common sense suggests control is required to make a catch. But in this instance any element of control that isn’t related to making a catch isn’t relevant.

A knock-on occurs when
(PART 1 – this is a necessary but not sufficient condition)
– a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or
– when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or
– when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward,AND
(PART 2 – required in conjunction with PART 1 to constitute a knock on)
– the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

Definitions: Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

Control is never mentioned, not in the law not in the clarifications, therefore the fact you drop the ball unintentionally and kick it is irrelevant. It is still a legal kick.
IT IS NOT A KNOCK ON HOWEVER BECAUSE BOTH PARTS OF THE CONDITION HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED.

In this situation the ball was dropped – Part 1 of the knock on condition satisifed, but Part 2 was never satisfied – the ball did not touch the ground or another player to complete the knock on.
What occurred instead was a kick. A legal defined act.
Why is a kick different to a tap – because a tap does not have a definition in the laws of rugby.

No where is control mentioned in the knock on law, nowhere is control mentioned in the kicking definition. If you execute a kick it is a kick, regardless of whether you intended to drop the ball or not is irrelevant.

Please note the wording (since you all apparently need comprehension lessons), “hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot” and note especially the difference between “the ball hitting any part of the leg or foot” and the intentional act of “hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot”.

Well when the FK did that change. So now I can drop the ball, lash out with my foot and it’s a kick. Do you know how many people at all levels of rugby have been called for that. I wish I’d had you with me when I was playing. I’d just tell the ref to FK off and point to you with your rule book.

Did you know the knee thing only came in because of spencer. When he first dropped it on to his knee he got called for it. He did it on purpose to pop it over the first line. Every time he used it over two games it was called based on that ruling them they changed the rule book with regards what constitutes a kick.

Big Kev. You are wrong go learn how to read the laws for goodness sake. Numpties guide to armchair refereeing

Did he have control of the ball? No
Did he intend to kick it out of hand? No

According to you knocking it forward then jumping forward and tipping it back before it hits the ground is not a knock on?
Because the conditions have not being met eather. The ball did not touch the ground when it went forward and you knocked it back which means its now backwards? Is it a knock on?
No! Why? Because you have to have control of the thing. Simple geez *facepalm

Law 17: Knock on or forward throw.
You can only knock-on with your hand or arm – a ball that goes forward from a head, chest or leg is not a knock-on.
You can still be blown for a knock-on if the referee feels you lost control of the ball before you kicked it.

Since the knock on law is Law 12 not Law 17, I think it is fair to say that is out of date.

The fact is that nowhere is there a clarification of this law for the kick scenario, it was plainly not considered when the law was written. It seems odd as it appears ripe for a published clarification – I have seen a clarification request regarding this issue but not an official response.

I am quite sure examples from international matches could be found to support both points of view.

Unless the referees get directives that we don’t have public access to, and someone can produce a copy of it – it is fairly clear that you aren’t going to convice me and I am not going to convince you.

No the ball still went forward travelling towards the opponents goal line. No control mention in the laws?

The IRB Playing Charter
The International Rugby Board publishes a Playing Charter setting out Rugby’s basic principles: conduct, spirit, CONTROLLED physicality and contest for possession. The Charter’s objective is to ensure that Rugby maintains its unique character both on and off the field.